Classical philosophy and Darwinian biology are far more compatible than is usually assumed. In fact, looking at either from the standpoint of the other can enrich and deepen our appreciation of both. From a Darwinian point of view, the theories of Plato and Aristotle deserve to be taken very seriously. From the classical point of view, Darwinian biology is much less reductionist than its enemies suppose.

Friday, November 6, 2015

Political Climate

On the same day that President
Obama finally made a decision about the Keystone Pipeline (he killed it) we
learn that the New York State Attorney General is launching an investigation
targeting Exxon, on the theory that the oil company lied to its investors about
the risks of climate change. Both
stories should chill the hearts of anyone who believes that economic policies
should be made for economic reasons and that science requires that scientific
theories be open to challenge.

After seven years of dithering,
including a State Department approval of the project, the President decided to
nix the Keystone approval on political grounds.
From
the New York Times:

Mr. Obama said that the pipeline has occupied what he called
“an overinflated role in our political discourse.”

“It has become a symbol too often used as a campaign cudgel by
both parties rather than a serious policy matter,” he said. “And all of this
obscured the fact that this pipeline would neither be a silver bullet for the
economy, as was promised by some, nor the express lane to climate disaster
proclaimed by others.”

Yes, the pipeline would not have
been a “silver bullet.” It would just
have been the most efficient and safest means of moving the oil from the tar
sands where it was extracted. Those are
economic reasons for approving the pipeline.
It would not have been, as the President admits, “the express lane to
climate disaster proclaimed by others.”
Why not?

Environmentalists had sought to block construction of the
pipeline because it would have provided a conduit for petroleum extracted from
the Canadian oil sands. The process of extracting
that oil produces about 17 percent more planet-warming greenhouse gases than
the process of extracting conventional oil.

But numerous State Department reviews concluded that
construction of the pipeline would have little impact on whether that type of
oil was burned, because it was already being extracted and moving to market via
rail and existing pipelines.

So approving Keystone would have
been economically indicated and denying it would have paid no environmental
dividends. The only difference is now we
are moving it by rail through urban centers where an unfortunate event would
kill lots of people.

So why did the President kill
it? Poetry.

“America is now a global leader when it comes to taking
serious action to fight climate change,” Mr.
Obama said in remarks from the White House. “And, frankly, approving this
project would have undercut that global leadership.”

The move was made ahead of a major United Nations summit
meeting on climate change to be held in Paris in December, when Mr. Obama hopes
to help broker a historic agreement committing the world’s nations to enacting
new policies to counter global warming. While the rejection of the pipeline is
largely symbolic, Mr. Obama has sought to telegraph to other world leaders that
the United States is serious about acting on climate change.

Mr. Obama wants to “telegraph”
world leaders that we are serious about acting on climate change. The rejection of the pipeline is not
“largely” symbolic. It is altogether
symbolic.

Politics trumping economic policy
is a dog bites man story. Politics
attempting to strangle science is a different kettle of canines. Again
from the Times:

The New York attorney general has begun an investigation of
Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks
of climate change or
to investors about how such risks might hurt the oil business.

According to people with knowledge of the investigation,
Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a subpoena Wednesday evening to
Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents.

The investigation focuses on whether statements
the company made to investors about climate risks as recently as this year were
consistent with the company’s own long-running scientific research.

The notion that Exxon could know
how future climate change might hurt the oil business is utterly
ridiculous. It’s hard enough to predict
the oil business a year in advance. The
best climate science can only give you a range of possibilities (1.4 degree to
4 degrees by the end of this century).
Is it really possible that Exxon lied
about what this will to do to their portfolios eight-five years from now? No.

What this is really about is that
Exxon funded both “good” climate research (i.e., that supported the climate
change alarmist agenda) and groups that criticized the alarmist view. The purpose of the investigation is to punish
Exxon for funding the heretics and thus starve the latter.

Good science need critics. Environmental policy needs real solutions, not
symbolic ones. Precisely if you believe
that climate change is a real danger, you should welcome challenges to your
view. If you are right, your view will
be confirmed. That means, however, that
you have to be open to the possibility that your view is wrong. Neither the President nor the Attorney General
of New York are interested in that. c